(5.10.99) The editors had a great laugh. Six months ago, Volker Jungbluth, opportunities-contributor to the industry periodical C'T, wanted to deny the internet world the phrase "Site Promotion". Editors could report on the best way to publicise a web page only using a "TM" after the phrase.
Despite being ignored by the internet community, it was an issue for web [content?] providers. Some companies advertising on the web using phrases like "webspace", "explorer" or "site-promotion" were mercilessly threatned, often by the notorious Munich lawyer Gravenrueth.
Today a new absurdity came across the editors' desk: the 43year old entrepeneur from Cologne Norbert Helling stated through his lawyer Hans-Jürgen Amend that the @-sign had patent protection for printed products. Attached was a copy of "Design patent book 12", dated 25.6.1999
In this, Hellig didn't even bother to design a single @-sign. The patent description concerned a letter in the font "Times". The figure is described as "letter a". Our lawyer will have a look at the documentation. We will keep you up to date on the soundness of potential warnings from this.
With all due respect. BIG DEAL. So someone doesn't like Aussies. No-one likes everyone.
$sarcasm on$ The English don't like the Germans. The Belgians don't like the Dutch. Many people don't like the USA. No one likes the French. $sarcasm off$
But really, it doesn't matter at all whether Indonesians as a race like or dislike Aussies.
What matters somewhat is a country's official foreign policy. What matters a lot from Australia's point of view is the US's official foreign policy. This real-politik has served Australia well since the war.
I agree that having your embassy shot at is not great. However, this is why the people representing Australia over there are called "diplomats". They are supposed to be diplomatic about these kind of things.
If embassies are consistantly shot at, to the outside world, the host nation just looks incompetent for not being able to keep peace on their streets.
Finally, everyone in politics (even Nth Korea) realises that the firing of a missile which hits a foreign country is an act of war - and these days will probably get a multinational force arrayed against them. And anyway, why would Indonesia provoke a shooting war that they could never win with one of their biggest trading partners?
Firstly, countries are not "literally at war" until there is a public declaration. Have you heard one of these? Of course, this doesn't exclude a campaign of dirty tricks or covert interfearance like the US involvement in Afghanistan in the mid 80's.
Secondly, the US and Australia are firm allies. This doesn't mean that each country isn't soverign, and sometimes their national interests clash. However, it is on nothing as important as national security. Remember that Australia hosts some important US satellite bases on its soil. Now, of course, the US military will not grind to a halt without these bases, but they are important "assets".
Finally, invasion of Australia from the north is a subject that has engaged the brains of Australian military planners for a long time. Summary: it would be extremely difficult and probably couldn't be done by anyone except the US itself. Remember that after the city of Darwin on the coast, to the south there is 2000km of really nasty desert. To the east there is 2000km of really nasty crocodile infested tropical rainforest. Logistics for supporting an invasion over that kind of terrain is Australia's defense.
Yes, I have read about this one. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the place. Apparently in the early 60s the Russians had a *major* nuclear disaster in a research town which officially didn't exist. Of course, at the heght of the cold war, the Russians didn't exactly announce the accident to the western press.
I believe that abnormal radiation levels were detected by US spy flights over the area.
In the face of overwhelming empirical evidence, the disaster was finally officially acknowledged by the Russian government in the early 80's.
To deal with it, they say "just drive fast" through the area.
I absolutely agree. In my experience, forward thinking companies will not employ >20% contractors. Full Stop. This is just risk management.
Additionally, the best kinds of job assigments tend to be given to the full time employees, with the contractors taking up the slack.
Ask yourself: would you rather be making design decisions, or hacking out some code based on someone else's design? (or even worse, running regression tests). Generally, permanents get the former jobs, contractors the latter.
However, I have also worked at places where a contractor or two makes themselves "indespensible" (or at least extremely useful), and then refuses to come on board as permanent, and refuses to train permanents. Needless to say that this type of thing does not fill management with joy!
Slashdot Mirror
Here is my approximate (TM) translation.
(5.10.99) The editors had a great laugh. Six months ago, Volker Jungbluth, opportunities-contributor to the industry periodical C'T, wanted to deny the internet world the phrase "Site Promotion". Editors could report on the best way to publicise a web page only using a "TM" after the phrase.
Despite being ignored by the internet community, it was an issue for web [content?] providers. Some companies advertising on the web using phrases like "webspace", "explorer" or "site-promotion" were mercilessly threatned, often by the notorious Munich lawyer Gravenrueth.
Today a new absurdity came across the editors' desk: the 43year old entrepeneur from Cologne Norbert Helling stated through his lawyer Hans-Jürgen Amend that the @-sign had patent protection for printed products. Attached was a copy of "Design patent book 12", dated 25.6.1999
In this, Hellig didn't even bother to design a single @-sign. The patent description concerned a letter in the font "Times". The figure is described as "letter a". Our lawyer will have a look at the documentation. We will keep you up to date on the soundness of potential warnings from this.
With all due respect. BIG DEAL. So someone doesn't like Aussies. No-one likes everyone.
$sarcasm on$
The English don't like the Germans. The Belgians don't like the Dutch. Many people don't like the USA. No one likes the French.
$sarcasm off$
But really, it doesn't matter at all whether Indonesians as a race like or dislike Aussies.
What matters somewhat is a country's official foreign policy. What matters a lot from Australia's point of view is the US's official foreign policy. This real-politik has served Australia well since the war.
I agree that having your embassy shot at is not great. However, this is why the people representing Australia over there are called "diplomats". They are supposed to be diplomatic about these kind of things.
If embassies are consistantly shot at, to the outside world, the host nation just looks incompetent for not being able to keep peace on their streets.
Finally, everyone in politics (even Nth Korea) realises that the firing of a missile which hits a foreign country is an act of war - and these days will probably get a multinational force arrayed against them. And anyway, why would Indonesia provoke a shooting war that they could never win with one of their biggest trading partners?
C'mon mate, get a grip on reality.
Firstly, countries are not "literally at war" until there is a public declaration. Have you heard one of these? Of course, this doesn't exclude a campaign of dirty tricks or covert interfearance like the US involvement in Afghanistan in the mid 80's.
Secondly, the US and Australia are firm allies. This doesn't mean that each country isn't soverign, and sometimes their national interests clash. However, it is on nothing as important as national security. Remember that Australia hosts some important US satellite bases on its soil. Now, of course, the US military will not grind to a halt without these bases, but they are important "assets".
Finally, invasion of Australia from the north is a subject that has engaged the brains of Australian military planners for a long time. Summary: it would be extremely difficult and probably couldn't be done by anyone except the US itself. Remember that after the city of Darwin on the coast, to the south there is 2000km of really nasty desert. To the east there is 2000km of really nasty crocodile infested tropical rainforest. Logistics for supporting an invasion over that kind of terrain is Australia's defense.
Yes, I have read about this one. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the place. Apparently in the early 60s the Russians had a *major* nuclear disaster in a research town which officially didn't exist. Of course, at the heght of the cold war, the Russians didn't exactly announce the accident to the western press.
I believe that abnormal radiation levels were detected by US spy flights over the area.
In the face of overwhelming empirical evidence, the disaster was finally officially acknowledged by the Russian government in the early 80's.
To deal with it, they say "just drive fast" through the area.
Yes. We need a central computer called Holly ;-)
I absolutely agree. In my experience, forward thinking companies will not employ >20% contractors. Full Stop. This is just risk management.
Additionally, the best kinds of job assigments tend to be given to the full time employees, with the contractors taking up the slack.
Ask yourself: would you rather be making design decisions, or hacking out some code based on someone else's design? (or even worse, running regression tests). Generally, permanents get the former jobs, contractors the latter.
However, I have also worked at places where a contractor or two makes themselves "indespensible" (or at least extremely useful), and then refuses to come on board as permanent, and refuses to train permanents. Needless to say that this type of thing does not fill management with joy!